Abstract Survey of Invasive, Exotic And

ABSTRACT

SURVEY OF INVASIVE, EXOTIC AND NOXIOUS FLORA FOR U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AT KENAI NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, KENAI PENINSULA ALASKA

By Caleb R Slemmons

The increasing awareness and threat of exotic and invasive flora in Alaska necessitated a preliminary survey of exotic plant distribution for the nearly 2 million acre Kenai National Wildlife Refuge in Southcentral Alaska. As a Biological Technician Intern at the Refuge my primary responsibility was to develop, write and begin implementation of a plan to survey exotic, invasive and noxious flora. In addition, I was also involved in various side projects including dendrochronological dating of cabin logs and miscellaneous projects such as snowmachine trail use monitoring, double-crested cormorant nest counts and burn severity assessment at the 2005 Glacier Creek fire on Tustumena Lake. The following report details and evaluates my experience. SURVEY OF INVASIVE, EXOTIC AND NOXIOUS FLORA FOR U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AT KENAI NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE, KENAI PENINSULA ALASKA

An Internship Report

Submitted to the Faculty of Miami University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Environmental Science Institute of Environmental Sciences

By Caleb Raymond Slemmons Miami University Oxford, Ohio 2005

Advisor______Dr. Thomas O. Crist

Advisor______Dr. Adolph M. Greenberg

Advisor______Dr. Mark M. Boardman TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction...... 1 II. Background...... 2 2.1 US Fish and Wildlife Service ...... 2 2.2 Kenai Peninsula and Kenai National Wildlife Refuge...... 3 III. Planning and Implementation of Invasive, Exotic and Noxious Flora Survey for KENWR ....5 3.1 Introduction...... 5 3.2 Background...... 6 3.3 List of Exotic Flora for Alaska and the Kenai Peninsula...... 9 3.4 Use of Landscape Monitoring Efforts for Occurrence of Exotic Flora ...... 10 3.5 Research, Planning and Implementation of Vegetation Surveys ...... 11 3.51 AKEPIC (Alaska Exotic Plant Information Clearinghouse)...... 11 3.52 BAER (Burn Area Emergency Rehabilitation)...... 11 3.53 WIMS (Weed Information Management System) National Refuge System Test Pilot 12 IV. Dendrochronological Analysis of Historical Refuge Cabins...... 14 4.1 Background and Introduction...... 14 4.2 Methods...... 16 4.3 Results & Discussion ...... 17 V. Other Technician Activities ...... 22 5.1 Snowmachine Monitoring...... 22 5.2 Double-crested Cormorant Productivity Surveys...... 24 5.3 Burn Severity Assessment of 2004 Glacier Creek Fire ...... 25 VI. Conclusion & Evaluation...... 26 VII. References ...... 28

APPENDIX

A - Survey Plan of Exotic, Noxious and Invasive Flora…………………………………………31 B - Invasive Flora of the Kenai Peninsula Brochure…………………………………………….86 C - BAER Protocols for Assessment of Fire-related Introduction of Exotic and Invasive Flora.92

ii TABLE OF TABLES

Table 1 – KENWR historical cabin construction dates determined by dendrochronological analysis Table 2 - Summary of deployment dates, retrieval dates, and total number of snowmachine detections at 5 selected trail locations on the southern Kenai Peninsula, February 2005.

iii TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1 – The 16 Alaskan National Wildlife Refuges Figure 2 - Stages of plant invasion from Hobbs & Humphries (1995) Figure 3 - Recorded extent of exotic and invasive flora for Alaska from AKEPIC (2004) Figure 4 - Records of exotic flora from LTEMP sampling grid Figure 5 - WIMS desktop interface in MS Access Figure 6 - The Harry Johnson Cabin, dated to 1925 Figure 7 – Assemblage of a master chronology and dating of samples of unknown age Figure 8 - Velmex sliding-bench micrometer for making tree ring-width meaurements Figure 9 - Using a metal detector to retrieve TRAFx snowmachine sensor. Figure 10 - Double-crested cormorant nesting success at Skilak Lake, Kenai Peninsula, Alaska 1982-2005 Figure 11 - Pre and Post-fire LANDSAT7 Images of Glacier Creek Fire 2004

iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks to John Morton (Supervisory Biologist) for the tremendous opportunity to intern at the Kenai Refuge and Refuge staff for all the help and interest in the project. Ed Berg and Gary Titus for good discussion and sharing of your knowledge and also Mark Laker for technical support. Thanks also to Hansel Klausner (Homer Soil and Water Conservation District) and Janice Chumley (University of Alaska Fairbanks Agricultural Extension) for early assistance in planning and helping me to feel welcome in such an overwhelmingly massive place.

Thanks to my committee members, Dr. Tom Crist, Dr. Adolph Greenberg and Dr. Mark Boardman for all their help, mentoring and guidance. Thanks also to the Institute of Environmental Sciences office staff, Betty Haven and Christine Ingham for much appreciated technical support.

Finally, thanks to my family and friends for your continual support and encouragement. Special thanks to my grandparents: Harold and Martha Barker, Elza and Cora Slemmons. Your encouragement and inspiration has been a constant throughout - this degree is dedicated to you.

v I. Introduction

I began an internship with the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KENWR) on the Kenai Peninsula in Southcentral Alaska in February 2005. The KENWR is part of the 93 million acre Wildlife Refuge System maintained by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under the U.S. Department of the Interior. Their core mission is to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. I completed my term in July, fulfilling a partial requirement for the Masters of Environmental Science degree at Miami University’s (Oxford, Ohio) Institute of Environmental Science.

As a Biological Technician, I was responsible for a variety of tasks. However, my internship was primarily focused on drafting, planning and implementation of a Refuge survey of exotic and invasive species of terrestrial, vascular flora. Drafting the plan to implement surveys for exotic and invasive flora at KENWR involved the following major steps: background research and literature review, collection of exotic plant records for the Kenai Peninsula, analysis of existing vegetation datasets and finally research, planning and implementation of vegetation surveys.

In addition, I also worked substantially on a project to date historical Refuge cabins using dendrochronological analysis of cabin log cross-sections. Other various duties included snowmachine (snowmobile) trail use monitoring, productivity nest counts of gull and double- crested cormorant nests on Skilak Lake islands and burn severity assessment of the 2005 Glacier Creek fire.

1 II. Background

2.1 US Fish and Wildlife Service

Last year, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) celebrated a century of conservation efforts through the National Wildlife Refuge system. Originally established as the Bureau of Biological Survey and merged with the Bureau of Fisheries – USFWS was created and brought under the Department of Interior in 1940.

The first wildlife refuge was established by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1903 on Pelican Island in Florida. The USFWS now maintains over five hundred Wildlife Refuges nationwide. It is also responsible for listing of endangered species through administration of the Endangered Species Act (1973) and maintains almost 70 National Fish Hatcheries. The National Wildlife Refuge system has protected habitat for countless species of migratory waterfowl over the past century and continues to work towards their core mission: to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people.

Figure 1 – The 16 Alaskan National Wildlife Refuges

Alaska has a wealth of public land including 16 National Wildlife Refuges (Figure 1). Alaskan Wildlife Refuges range from the 300,000 acre Izembek Refuge to the massive 19.6 million acre Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Alaskan refuges protect diverse habitats from volcanic islands to arctic tundra. Due in part to the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (1980), they constitute 83% of all National Wildlife Refuge lands!

2.2 Kenai Peninsula and Kenai National Wildlife Refuge

The Kenai Peninsula is home to a diverse assemblage of flora and fauna. Often called “Alaska in miniature” the Kenai Peninsula encompasses a variety of habitats from alpine to estuarine. The Kenai Mountains, reaching to 6,200 ft elevation, bisect the peninsula into the temperate rainforest to the east and boreal forest on the western half. Much of the peninsula is dominated by peat bogs and wetlands as well as numerous lakes and braided stream channels. “Average rainfall varies from 20 to 80 inches (50 to 200 cm) per annum, and the mean annual temperature is 39 degrees F (3.9 degrees C).” (DeVelice et al. 1999)

The Kenai National Wildlife Refuge was set aside as the Kenai National Moose Range in 1941, and established as a National Wildlife Refuge in 1980 under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). KENWR encompasses 2 million acres of land including over 1 million acres of congressionally designated wilderness area. Lowland boreal forest is composed primarily of white (Picea glauca) and black (P. mariana) spruce, interspersed with white birch (Betula papyrifera) and quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides). Alpine forests include mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana). Much of the alpine, above 1,800 ft., is dominated by lichen and mosses as well as dense stands of alder (Alnus spp.) and willow (Salix spp.) shrubs. Almost 200 species of amphibians, birds, and mammals are known to use habitats on KENWR (KENWR LMTB, 2003).

Kenai NWR was established under ANILCA for the following purposes:

(i) To conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity, including but not limited to moose, bear, mountain goats, Dall sheep, wolves and other

3 furbearers, salmonoids and other fish, waterfowl and other migratory and nonmigratory birds;

(ii) To fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish and wildlife and their habitats;

(iii) To ensure, to the maximum extent practicable and in a manner consistent with the purposes set forth in paragraph (i), water quality and necessary water quantity within the refuge;

(iv) To provide in a manner consistent with paragraphs (i) and (ii), opportunities for scientific research, interpretation, environmental education, and land management training; and

(v) To provide, in a manner compatible with these purposes, opportunities for fish and wildlife-oriented recreation.

4 III. Planning and Implementation of Invasive, Exotic and Noxious Flora Survey for KENWR

Definitions

"Invasive species" means an alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. (Executive Order 13112)

"Alien (or exotic) species” means, with respect to a particular ecosystem, any species, including its seeds, eggs, spores, or other biological material capable of propagating that species, that is not native to that ecosystem. (Executive Order 13112)

Federal Noxious Weed Act, 1974 “Noxious weed” any living stage (including seeds and reproductive parts) of a parasitic or other plant of a kind which is of foreign origin, is new to or not widely prevalent in the U.S., and can directly or indirectly injure crops, other useful plants, livestock, poultry or other interests of agriculture, including irrigation, navigation, fish and wildlife resources, or the public health.

Alaska Administrative Code (11 AAC 34.020) “Noxious weed” any species of plants, either annual, biennial, or perennial, reproduced by seed, root, underground stem, or bulblet, which when established is or may become destructive and difficult to control by ordinary means of cultivation or other farm practices.

3.1 Introduction

Management (CNIPM) launched in 2001, the Strategic Plan for Noxious and Invasive Plant

5 Management in Alaska and has broad endorsement from local entities to federal agencies including US Fish and Wildlife Service. Current global climate warming trends (Melillo et al., 2000) and spruce mortality due to bark beetle infestation are likely to further exacerbate the invasion of exotic plants as they begin to colonize once inhospitable locations.

The State of Alaska has a unique opportunity to be proactive in managing exotic, invasive and other injurious plants (see “Definitions” above). Many federal agencies including Natural Resource Conservation Service, National Parks and US Forest Service have begun to survey for exotic, invasive and noxious weeds throughout Alaska. In fact, over 70 exotic plant species and at least 14 invasives have been recorded for the Kenai Peninsula.

As agency signatories of the CNIPM plan and as directed by legislative and agency mandates, KENWR promulgated the development of a plan for a “Survey of Exotic, Invasive and Noxious Flora” (Appendix A). One of my primary responsibilities was to plan, write and help design this survey effort. The results of this survey were to provide vital baseline information about refuge biotic integrity and provide insight into future exotic and invasive plant monitoring and management efforts. My initial task was to begin background and literature review, which is summarized in the following section.

3.2 Background

Invasive species cause untold damage to ecosystems worldwide and cost the US economy over $137 billion dollars annually (Pimentel et al., 1999). In 1999, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13112 setting up the National Invasive Species Council to begin dealing with the invasive species epidemic. The Order also includes a mandate for federal agencies to halt further introductions while controlling and minimizing damage of existing invasive populations.

6 Executive Order, little concerted effort had been made to stem the tide of plant invasions. A lone exception, the 1974 Federal Noxious Weed Act, allowed for some restrictions on importation of noxious weeds - primarily those deleterious to agricultural production.

As a combined result of unique climate conditions and fewer population and land use pressures, only 144 (~10%) of species in Alaska are considered exotic with viable wild populations (Rejmanek and Randall 1994). However, increased plant inventories are likely to yield additional accounts of exotics not yet recorded for Alaska. Already localized populations of a widespread aggressive invader, garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata (Bieb.) Cavara & Grand), were located in 2001 near Juneau (Tu & Meyers-Rice, 2001). Bird or tufted vetch (Viccia cracca) is a common roadside invader with infestations in several locations throughout the state including Southcentral Alaska (Nolan, 2002).

Figure 2 - Stages of plant Alaska has much to loose and prevention is the key as invasion from Hobbs & restoration and cleanup can be far more expensive to Humphries (1995) implement once invasives are already established and are beyond the control priority stage (Fig. 2). The time and cost for removal and revegetation projects can be staggering. In fact, invasive species have the potential to undermine much of Alaska’s resource base and industry including fishing and tourism.

Attempts are underway to determine the extent of distributions of noxious weeds and other invasive and injurious plants in Alaska (Fig 3). The Alaska Committee for Noxious and Invasive Plants Management (CNIPM) launched in 2001, the Strategic Plan for Noxious and Invasive Plants Management in Alaska and has broad endorsement from local entities to federal agencies including US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The Strategic Plan calls for increased coordination and heightened awareness of the importance of the invasive plant issue. In addition, increased inventory work, monitoring, research and management of invasive plant populations are part of the Plan. As a result, the Alaska Exotic Plant Information Clearinghouse (AKEPIC)

7 and associated data collection standards have been developed. In addition, the Alaska Natural Heritage Program has begun a ranking project to determine the relative invasiveness of exotic plants for management prioritization.

Figure 3 - Recorded extent of exotic and invasive flora for Alaska from AKEPIC (2004)

Several locations in Alaska are now being surveyed and monitored for invasive plants. The National Park Service found almost 30 species of exotics in 5 Alaskan park units in a 2001 survey (Densmore, 2001). Recent inventories conducted at Chugach National Forest have identified populations of more than 60 exotic species and 6 species listed as State noxious or restricted weeds (Duffy, 2003; DeVelice, 2004). Several National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska have existing inventory, monitoring or control programs underway for invasive flora. Following an outbreak of orange hawkweed (Hieracium aurantiacum) on Kodiak Island in South Western Alaska the Kodiak Refuge began an aggressive, ongoing eradication project. In the Interior, Tetlin Refuge found three exotic clover species in a survey of the Alaskan Highway corridor adjacent to the refuge and is beginning monitoring efforts (Cebrian & Johnson, 2004).

8 Kenai NWR is the most visited refuge in Alaska and one of only two that are road accessible. Aside from extensive public use, surrounding land uses such as oilfields and urban development make KENWR very susceptible to many common vectors of exotic species introduction. Exotic floras are likely well established on certain parts of the refuge. Exotic species have already been documented elsewhere on the Kenai Peninsula: Chugach National Forest (Duffy 2003, DeVelice 2004), Kenai Fjords National Park (Densmore et al. 2001), and on adjacent nonfederal lands (Homer/Kenai SWCD 2004).

3.3 List of Exotic Flora for Alaska and the Kenai Peninsula

Early in my term at KENWR, I began compiling records (See page 31 of Appendix A), of target exotic vascular plant species for Alaska utilizing published sources. These were classified by type (invasive, state and federal noxious weeds) and assembled into a database. Species were further classified based on their recorded occurrence in Alaska and on the Kenai Peninsula. This was accomplished primarily via AKEPIC records, but a few species were added from published accounts not included in database accounts (Duffy, 2004; DeVelice 2004; Homer/Kenai SWCD 2004; Simonson et al., 2004). Those species not listed as noxious or invasive and have not been recorded in Alaska are identified as potential invaders from sources such as noxious weeds of Canada and Northwestern US. Species were subsequently coded utilizing the United States Department of Agriculture Integrated Taxonomic Information System (http://www.itis.usda.gov; ITIS, 2005). Species invasiveness and management prioritization information were appended to these records from Alaska Natural Heritage Program’s Weed Ranking Project (AKNHP, 2004) and Natureserve’s invasive species rankings (Natureserve, 2004). As a result of compiling the information about invasive flora for the Kenai Peninsula, I was asked to develop a brochure for public awareness, discussing the 14 most invasive plants of the Kenai and the prevention of their establishment and proliferation. The brochure, entitled “Invasive Flora of the Kenai Peninsula” is in Appendix B.

3.4 Use of Landscape Monitoring Efforts for Occurrence of Exotic Flora

The Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) and KENWRs, Long Term Ecological Monitoring Program (LTEMP) provided vegetation data for query of exotic, invasive and noxious flora (See Appendix A for additional information). The dataset provides occurrence of vascular plant species for a fixed radius circular plot on a 5 km grid across the Refuge. MS Access (2000) queries returned target species occurrence from the LTEMP and FIA dataset with spatial plot coordinates (Fig. 4). Baseline landscape frequency was calculated from the number of points sampled (n=244) and the relatively low landscape frequency (2.868%) was calculated and distribution mapped using ArcGIS 9.0 (ESRI; Redlands, CA).

Figure 4 - Records of exotic flora from LTEMP sampling grid

It was readily apparent that the landscape frequency yielded little information about the anthropogenically disturbed sites at KENWR. Few LTEMP or FIA sample points were located in disturbed areas. These sites, which are most likely to contain the majority of exotic flora, are most susceptible to the common vectors of introduction and are favorable sites for establishment of non-native plants (e.g. open, dry sites). In March, I began to draft a plan (Appendix A) to

10 survey more disturbed sites and provide a more accurate idea of the distribution of exotic, invasive and noxious flora at KENWR.

3.5 Research, Planning and Implementation of Vegetation Surveys

Initially I began assembling GIS layers of the anthropogenic footprint (See Page 39 of Appendix A) to get an idea of the area to be sampled. I quickly realized that many of the features were extensive (e.g. 913 miles of seismic lines) and a representative sample would have to be drawn as opposed to a census. However, campgrounds and trailheads seemed reasonable with the resources available for a complete census. After much discussion and deliberation, I planned a two-tiered sampling scheme described in the Appended plan that is intended to provide quick, systematic coverage with survey of temporary plots and more intensive, rigorous sampling at a series of permanent monitoring sites. The survey plan began implementation in mid-July of 2005 and should be completed in mid-August. In addition, several collaborative associations were made as a result of the planning process.

3.51 AKEPIC (Alaska Exotic Plant Information Clearinghouse)

AKEPIC was created collaboratively by USFS State and Private Forestry, the National Park Service and the USGS Alaska Science Center. The database, currently hosted by Alaska Natural Heritage Program (http://akweeds.uaa.alaska.edu), provides spatial information about exotic and invasive plant distribution statewide. The manual provided by AKEPIC outlines data requirements, as recommended by the North American Weed Management Association. All data collected for this effort, with the exception of confidential LTEMP and FIA plots, will meet AKEPIC standards and will be submitted to for inclusion into the statewide database.

3.52 BAER (Burn Area Emergency Rehabilitation)

Following severe Alaskan wildfires in 2004, an interagency plan was drafted to provide stabilization and mitigation of the impact of fires and suppression activities (BAER,

11 2004). Following a vegetation resource assessment, recommendations were made to federal entities to monitor and control the spread and proliferation of invasive plants as a result of fires and associated suppression efforts. One objective of the following rehabilitation plan was to “Evaluate potential for invasive plant species introduction or encroachment into native plant communities within, and adjacent to, fire areas and along travel ways.”(BAER, 2004).

Plans to implement invasive surveys in the 2005 field season coincided with KENWR timetable for conducting surveys within the anthropogenic footprint. Consequently, KENWR was able to aid, along with Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge, in the development of BAER protocols (Appendix C) for surveying exotic, invasive species on refuge lands statewide for FY05. The Alaska Natural Heritage Program will use the protocols in July for assessment of the Glacier Creek fire within KENWR on Tustumena Lake.

3.53 WIMS (Weed Information Management System) National Refuge System Test Pilot

12 In 2004, the USFWS began test piloting a program using volunteers to collect information about the extent of invasive plant infestations at several refuges nationwide. In 2005, they expanded the program using WIMS and asked personnel from KENWR to participate. Kenai NWR was already in the planning stages of a summer survey and also had several volunteers to do exotic plant surveys and use WIMS. Representatives from the Nature Conservancy and San Pablo NWR, who participated last year, held a training session in early July to orient volunteers and KENWR to the use of WIMS and field data collection.

13 IV. Dendrochronological Analysis of Historical Refuge Cabins

4.1 Background and Introduction

The KENWR has over 120 historic cabins located within its boundaries, mostly from the early to mid 20th century. Cabins were mostly constructed by hunters and trappers utilizing the productive benchland hunting grounds between Skilak and Tustumena Lakes. Two refuge cabins are listed on the National Register of Historical Places, including the Harry Johnson Cabin pictured below (Fig. 6), and several more meet criterion for listing. Gary Titus, Refuge historian, has been researching and preserving many of the KENWR cabins, some of which are public use and utilized by Peninsula residents and tourists. Although some historical information about refuge cabins and their builders has been unearthed by Titus, much remains unknown. Refuge ecologist, Ed Berg has been working with Titus to date historic refuge cabins utilizing dendrochronological methods.

Figure 6 - The Harry Johnson Cabin, dated to 1925

Dendrochronology is a branch of science concerned with the study of chronological sequence of annual growth rings in trees (Stokes & Smiley, 1996). Dendrochronology, which has been used

14 to study climate, tree stand history and in dating historical structures (dendroarchaeology), is based on a few basic principles. First, trees form distinct annual growth rings from the radial growth of xylem cells and formation of early and latewood. Latewood, is formed at the end of the growing season and its tracheid cells have dense, thickened cell walls compared to earlywood (or springwood). Secondly, annual growth rings are dependent on key environmental factors, such as precipitation and temperature, and the width of tree rings varies in a predictable and consistent manner. This allows for cross-dating, a comparison and matching of tree cross- sections based on the pattern of growth rings.

In cross-dating, tree ring widths are compared to a master chronology with known dates. A master chronology is constructed by measurement of samples of known age - often by collection of a cross- section or cores from live trees. This chronology can then be compared to older samples and overlapped to extend the chronology (Fig. 7). The sample of unknown age can then be compared to this chronology for very precise dating.

Beginning in February, I began making ring-width measurements on Figure 7 – Assemblage log cross-sections, or “cookies”, that had been collected since 2002. I of a master was also responsible for compiling older measurements and analyzing chronology and dating of samples of unknown data using standard methods of dendrochronology as described below age (Stokes & Smiley, 1968; Grassino-Mayer, 2004). Several limitations of the technique and the samples available made dating unreliable for several cabins: Cache Creek, Doroshin Bay and Caribou Island Cabins. For example, some cabin logs were less than 100 years old making correlation with a master chronology inconsistent and more prone to incorrect dating. Also, cabins with only one or two samples were more difficult to obtain reliable dates. However, I obtained consistent dates for following six Refuge cabins through dendrochronological analysis: Harry Johnson, Big Bay, Fork Creek, Home Cabin, Freeman and Glacier Flats Cabins. The Harry Johnson and Home Cabin construction dates - 1902 and 1926, respectively, have also been verified with historical information.

15 4.2 Methods

Samples were collected and prepared by cutting cross-sections of logs (called “cookies”) and sanding with progressively finer sandpaper to 400# grit. “Ring-widths were measured to an accuracy of 0.001 millimeter with a Velmex (Bloomfield, NY; Fig. 8) sliding bench micrometer, using a binocular microscope of 20-60x power (Berg, 2004)”. Following an error checking step for Figure 8 - Velmex sliding-bench micrometer missing rings etc. and consistency among for making tree ring-width meaurements measurements of the same cross-section. The set of ring-width measurements, typically 2-3 radii for each cookie, was compared with known chronologies in order to obtain the best estimate of the outermost ring date of the series (the apparent death date), using the software COFECHA, developed by the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research at the University of Arizona-Tucson (Holmes et al. 1986). The series were also visually dated with the CDendro software (Ver. 5.1.13 ; Larsson, 2004), which allows graphical matching of an undated series with a master dating chronology produced by COFECHA.

The chronology used to cross-date cabin logs with COFECHA was MOOBEAR.E15. This chronology was developed from 90 series of spruce tree samples in the Tustumena uplands area and spans the time period 1609-1996 (Berg, 2004). In addition to using program COFECHA dating was cross-checked using CDendro (Larsson 2004). This program allows the user to visually compare the undated sample against the chronology. The user can slide the ring-width measurements made on the unknown sample and view the correlation along with the graphical representation. This allows for an excellent qualitative cross-check and provides a means to look for missing ring measurements.

In COFECHA the measurements were statistically analyzed in two ways. Initially the unknown sample measurements were run against the MOOBEAR.E15 chronology to assign a tentative

16 date to the series. Then the samples were added to the master dating chronology and rerun. This is the most rigorous method of analysis. When the series are added to the chronology COFECHA uses autocorrelation to model the “carry-over effect” of prior annular growth. “This modeling is especially important in conifers, which put on extra needles in a good year. The extra needles allow more photosynthesis and hence more wood production in subsequent years. Since conifers hold their needles for at least 4 or 5 years, this carry-over effect needs to be mathematically removed to obtain the most accurate dating (Berg, 2004).”

4.3 Results & Discussion

The dates in Table 1 below include individual dates of the outermost ring for each radius measured for each log cross section as determined from COFECHA and visual checking with CDendro. Correlations ranged from 0.335 to 0.639 for individual radii measured. These correlations are excellent for COFECHA analysis with 30-year segments, overlapped by 15 years. However, caution must be exercised when interpreting results based on correlation values alone. Cross-dating is best done with a number of marker years for climatic, or in this area, volcanic events. In the MOOBEAR.E15 chronology, used to date these cabins, the years 1912 (Katmai eruption), 1885, 1814, 1778, 1711 and 1701 tend to appear as narrow rings. These marker years may not be distinctive in all samples however and local variability may mask the effect overall. In addition, if there is little variation in rings, year to year, the rings are said to be complacent. Complacent rings, because they lack the distinct pattern of annual growth trends, tend to give excellent correlation regardless of the dating. However, with the exception of the Glacier Flats Cabin, multiple log cross-sections were measured and cross-dated. This provides a powerful crosscheck among samples from the same cabin. Most chronologies were also over 100 years in length. This decreases the likelihood of spurious dating and is generally sufficient for accurate cross-dating of trees in the area (Berg, 2004).

Two of the cabins, Andrew Berg’s Home Cabin and the Harry Johnson Cabin, have historical evidence to support their dating to 1902 and 1926 respectively. Journal entries by Berg, recovered by Gary Titus, thoroughly document his life as a guide and trapper on Tustumena Lake (Titus & Cassidy, 2003). Entries also chronicle the construction of several cabins including

17 the Home Cabin, which is currently listed on the National Historic Register. The Harry Johnson Cabin, was known from an inscription on one of the cabin logs that documented its construction date.

For the Big Bay Cabin, which was dated to 1879 (Table 1), the earliest known mention was from 1902 by Colonel Claude Cane from the book “Summer and Fall in Western Alaska” (Titus & Cassidy, 2003).

“This county had been very little visited and hunted, but Maxim had been in there two years before with two men, a white and a half-breed belonging to the Kenai, and had spent some months hunting and trapping of with fair success.

A pull of eight hours brought us to the foot of the trail up which Maxim had gone two years before, and here we found a good substantial shack or log-hut, built by the two men who had employed him. This hut came in very handy to cache our sheep heads and stores in. (Titus & Cassidy, 2003).”

All that can be concluded from this account is that the cabin was in fair shape and built prior to 1902. No information is currently available about the two men traveling with Maxim, reported to have built the Big Bay Cabin. Two log cross-sections were analyzed for Big Bay Cabin, providing confirmation among samples; which had chronologies that were over or near 100 years in length. However, more samples should be collected to further confirm the date.

The remainder of the cabins, such as Fork Creek, listed in Table 1 currently has little, or no known historical background or context. Dates are plausible based solely on their virtue of being in the early or mid twentieth century when many other cabins were being built. Hopefully more historical information will surface to confirm or contrast the suggested dates of these historical structures from dendrochronological analysis.

The Freeman Cabin was dated to 1868, a relatively early construction date compared to many of the other cabins in the Tustumena Lake area. The cabin is believed to have been built by William

18 Freeman who emigrated from Finland in 1865 (Titus & Cassidy, 2003). The date seems plausible and consistent with his arrival in Alaska and employ at the Kasilof cannery nearby (Titus & Cassidy, 2003). This cabin had the most number of log cross-sections for analysis, one of which has a time span of over 130 years (Table 1).

Dating historical structures is not always likely to produce a certain date of construction. Cabin logs with annular rings that are complacent can lead to faulty dating. The Glacier Flats cabin was dated to 1870. However, according to Refuge historian Gary Titus, the date is much too old as the cabin was unfinished and was exposed to the elements. It is very unlikely that the logs would still be intact after 130 plus years without a roof to shed rainwater and prevent rotting. This cabin had only one cross-section sampled and, although the correlations are relatively high, is likely a result of spurious correlation.

For many of the cabins that are discussed here, evidence is presented to support construction dates. However, while the death date of the tree is a probable date of construction, it may be that standing snags may have been used, or the trees permitted to dry prior to construction. Still, dendrochonological analysis provides a powerful tool for very precise dating when utilized properly. Much can be said of the quality of dating by, not only correlation with a master chronology but the careful interpretation of the results, verification with multiple samples, lengthy chronologies and supporting historical information.

19 Table 1 – KENWR historical cabin construction dates determined by dendrochronological analysis

SAMPLE BEST # of BEST COFECHA OVERALL CABIN ID # OUTER DATE years CABIN DATE 30 yr CORRELATION Harry Johnson A1HJ6294 1926 134 1926 0.639 B1HJ6294 1926 134 0.621

A2HJ6294 1925 132 0.637 B2HJ6294 1926 133 0.615 C2HJ6292 1925 132 0.581 AVE = 0.618

Big Bay A1BB9024 1879 106 1879 0.525 B1BB9024 1879 106 0.512

A2BB2094 1879 97 0.342 B2BB9024 1878 96 0.415 C2BB9024 1878 96 0.371 AVE = 0.433

Fork Creek A1FK9143 1930 160 1932 0.463 B1FK9143 1932 162 0.482 C1FK9143 1931 162 0.476

A2FK9143 1930 178 0.42 B2FK9143 1930 179 0.355 C2FK9143 1931 180 0.391 AVE = 0.431

Home Cabin A1HC8163 1902 95 1902 0.341 B1HC8163 1901 94 0.335 C1HC8163 1901 94 0.411

A2HC8163 1901 82 0.678 B2HC8163 1901 82 0.592 C2HC8163 1901 82 0.576

A3HC8163 1901 103 0.589 B3HC8163 1900 102 0.654 C3HC8163 1901 103 0.631 AVE = 0.534

20 SAMPLE BEST # of BEST COFECHA OVERALL CABIN ID # OUTER DATE years CABIN DATE 30 yr CORRELATION Freeman Cabin A1FC5121 1864 138 1868 0.484 B1FC5121 1867 141 0.475 C1FC5121 1867 141 0.522 D1FC5121 1864 138 0.466 E1FC5121 1866 140 0.573

A5FC8051 1867 95 0.505 B5FC8051 1867 95 0.469 C5FC8051 1868 95 0.609 D5FC8051 1868 96 0.424 E5FC8051 1867 95 0.533

A6FC8051 1868 95 0.522 B6FC8051 1868 95 0.452

01FC8051 1868 94 0.497 02FC8051 1866 92 0.556 03FC8051 1866 92 0.503 04FC8051 1866 92 0.386 AVE = 0.499

Glacier Flats A1GF6201 1868 112 1870 0.509 B1GF6201 1867 111 0.43 C1GF6201 1870 113 0.597 D1GF6201 1870 114 0.578 AVE = 0.5285

21 V. Other Technician Activities

In addition to the activities described above, I also contributed in several other miscellaneous technician activities as needed. Several of the major ones are described briefly below.

5.1 Snowmachine Monitoring

In the winter months, I helped to set and retrieve snowmachine sensors for an ongoing monitoring project to quantify distribution and volume of snowmachine traffic. For this baseline study we used TRAFx? (Canmore, Alberta) off-road vehicle counters to detect the electromagnetic signature of the snowmachine traffic and record the date and time of snowmachine use. I helped place and retrieve sensors at several major trailheads south of the Kasilof River, leading into the Caribou Hills area. We used a Garrett (Garland, TX) metal detector to pinpoint the location of the sensor for retrieval.

Figure 9 - Using a metal detector to retrieve TRAFx snowmachine sensor.

“Sensors were operated for a 25-day period encompassing 4 different weekends. Of the 10 sensors deployed, only one failed to work properly. All other sensors worked properly and were very consistent between both sensors (Table 2). Of the 5 locations selected, Clam Gulch

22 Trailhead received a significant proportion of the total number of detections (46%) (Eskelin, 2005).”

Table 2 - Summary of deployment dates, retrieval dates, and total number of snowmachine detections at 5 selected trail locations on the southern Kenai Peninsula February 2005.

Date Number Sensor Location Deployed Retrieved of Hits ke18b W of Tinkle Tr. 2/7/2005 3/7/2005 131 ke07b W of Tinkle Tr. 2/7/2005 3/7/2005 0 ke14b Falls Creek Road Tr. 2/11/2005 3/7/2005 34 ke20b Falls Creek Road Tr. 2/11/2005 3/7/2005 35 ke01b Centennial Tr. 2/11/2005 3/7/2005 273 ke09b Centennial Tr. 2/11/2005 3/7/2005 280 ke16b Clam Gulch Tr. 2/11/2005 3/7/2005 510 ke05b Clam Gulch Tr. 2/11/2005 3/7/2005 503 ke12b Tinkle Tr. 2/9/2005 3/7/2005 163 ke21b Tinkle Tr. 2/9/2005 3/7/2005 151

“As expected, Friday through Sunday had elevated detection rates compared to the other days of the week. The period of Friday through Sunday had a mean detection rate of 13.7 snowmachines per day while Monday through Thursday the detection rate was 3.7 per day.

The majority of snowmachine traffic on the trails occurred between 9:00 and 20:00. Sunrise and sunset during this period was approximately 8:30 and 18:00 respectively. After 20:00 there were a few detections continuing until 4:00 the following morning. Between 5:00 and 7:00 there were no detections on any trails for the entire 25-day period. During the peak hours of snowmachine activity, the mean gap between detections was approximately 42 minutes on weekdays and 25 minutes on weekends (Eskelin, 2005).”

23 5.2 Double-crested Cormorant Productivity Surveys

In mid-June, I helped conduct nest counts of a rare inland-breeding population of double-crested cormorants and hybrid gulls on Skilak Lake islands. We were dropped off at several islands and recorded the number of cormorant and gull eggs per nest. This was part of an annual survey that has been ongoing since 1982 and provides interesting study of population dynamics between the productivity of nesting cormorants and hybrid gulls. The counts for 2005 indicate an increase in the number of cormorant eggs (Fig. 11) although the number of nests recorded is almost the same as 2004. This is a reflection of the general trend since monitoring of the colony began. The clutch size was four eggs for greater than 50% of the recorded nests (n=41). The number of hybrid glaucous-winged and herring gull nests was almost 800 for the 2005 survey; 490 of these had a clutch size of three eggs. Overall, the results from the 2005 survey indicate gull productivity seems to be increasing as the cormorant population appears to somewhat steady. Future monitoring efforts are continuing for this unique colony.

200

180

160

140

120

Total eggs laid 100 Total chicks fledged Number

0 1982 1983 1984 1985 1993 1994 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year

Figure 10 - Double-crested cormorant nesting success at Skilak Lake, Kenai Peninsula, Alaska 1982-2005

24 5.3 Burn Severity Assessment of 2004 Glacier Creek Fire

In early July, I spent a week doing burn severity assessment of the 7,100 acre Glacier Creek fire of 2004, Southeast of Tustumena Lake. For this project, region FWS personnel used remotely sensed imagery was used to calculate burn severity at the landscape scale. LANDSAT 7 scenes were collected both prior to and one year following the fire (Figure), were use to estimate forest structural differences following fire disturbance. Difference in reflectance values between the pre and post fire scenes define the change in the Normalized Burn Ratio (delta NBR). Previous studies have found a strong correlation between delta NBR and level of burn severity, with burn severity increasing as delta NBR increases. Forty sites were selected in an effort to ground truth the projected level of burn severity within the Glacier Creek Fire perimeter. We determined a Composite Burn Index (CBI) value for each site by sampling post fire vegetation within 20m diameter plots. This information will be used to assist the USFWS in improving the accuracy of the predicted delta NBR.

Figure 11 - Pre and post-fire LANDSAT7 images of Glacier Creek Fire, 2004

25 VI. Conclusion & Evaluation

My internship with KENWR was a positive experience overall. The experience that I gained in designing and implementing a study and working within a governmental organization was very beneficial. I learned much about the constraints and reality of working within a federal organization. Interaction with the staff of KENWR and other USFWS personnel has also helped me to understand and see how agency work is done. I have had many positive interactions and made connections with those within other federal agencies and private organizations in Alaska working on invasive plant management.

Much of the Institute of Environmental Sciences course work was useful throughout my internship. The skills that I developed during completion of a Public Service Project during my first year at IES were particularly useful during my intern position. The problem solving process taught at the Institute, and utilized during the Public Service Project, was an asset for the planning of the survey during my term at KENWR. It helped me to define goals and objectives and design a plan to meet those goals. It also aided my ability to work collaboratively with others while considering the bigger picture.

The Advanced GIS course that I took through the Geography Department at Miami was also an asset, as much of the exotic plant survey planning required knowledge of GIS. I greatly increased my literacy of GIS, as well as becoming familiar with use of relational databases, through this intern position. I designed a personal geodatabase for the exotic flora survey and learned about its application for collecting field data quickly and efficiently. This was essential for planning the substantial and meaningful survey effort that was to be completed while adhering to strict limitations in scope.

Through this internship I was afforded the opportunity to see and learn much about Alaska and the Kenai Peninsula. I learned much about the Alaskan environment and economy as well as the culture and history. Literacy of conservation efforts and land management issues in Alaska were a valuable addition to my experience. Dating of historical cabin on the refuge led me to learn

26 about the history of the Peninsula. The internship has been invaluable overall; I have seen much and learned much about Alaskans and their way of life.

27 VII. References

AKEPIC Mapping Project Collaborator’s Manual, 2004 (http://akweeds.uaa.alaska.edu/) accessed February 2005.

AKNHP. 2004 - Alaska Natural Heritage Program Weed Ranking Project (http://akweeds.uaa.alaska.edu/akweeds_ranking_page.htm) accessed February 2005.

BAER. 2004 Alaska Fires Burned Area Emergency Stabilization and Rehabilitation Plan.U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Forestry, State of Alaska Department of Transportation, Tanana Chiefs Conference, Doyon LTD. (http://www.ak.blm.gov/baer/) accessed March, 2005

Berg, Edward. 2004 Tree-ring dating of the Victor Holm Cabins, Kasilof, Alaska. Report for the Kachemak Heritage Land Trust. 9pp.

Cebrian, M. R. & Johnson, W.N. Alaska highway: 2004 invasive plant survey progress report 04-05. US Fish and Wildlife Service – Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge. 15 pp.

Densmore, R.V., P.C. McKee & C. Roland. 2001. Exotic plants in Alaskan National Park Units. USGS Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, AK. 144pp.

Duffy, M. 2003. Non-native plants of the Chugach National Forest: a preliminary inventory. USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest, Alaska Region Technical Publication R10-TP- 111. Anchorage, Alaska.

Dunn, P. 1992. Long-term biological resource and threat monitoring of Hawaiian Natural Areas. Produced for the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Forestry and Wildlife, by The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii. Honolulu, HI.

DeVelice, R.L. 2004. Non-native plant inventory: Kenai Trails. USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest, Alaska Region Technical Publication R10-TP-124. Anchorage, Alaska.

Eskelin, T. 2005 Pilot Study: Investigation of Snowmachine Volume on Selected Trails on the Southern Kenai Peninsula, Feruary 11 to March 7, 2005. Unpublished report. 9 pp.

Grissino-Mayer, H. 2004. Henri Grissino-Mayer’s Ultimate Tree-ring Webpages: http://web.utk.edu/~grissino/. COFECHA and other tree-ring software can be downloaded through links from this website.

Holmes, R. L., R. K. Adams, and H. C. Fritts. 1986. Quality control in crossdating, a users manual for program COFECHA. In “Tree-ring chronologies of western North America: California, eastern Oregon and northern Great Basin.” Chronology Series VI: 41-49. Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, The University of Arizona, Tucson.

28 Hulten, E. 1981. Flora of Alaska and Neighboring Territories. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.

Hobbs, Richard J. & Humphries, S. E. 1995. An integrated approach to the ecology and management of plant invastions. Conservation Biology 9(4): 761-770.

Homer/Kenai Soil & Water Conservation District. 2004. Draft preliminary survey of the Kenai Peninsula Invasive Plants Inventory. Prepared for USDA. 15 pp.

ITIS 2005. Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS) (http://www.itis.usda.gov/) accessed February, 2005.

Kriedeman, C. 2004. Final report: exotic plant management team. National Parks Service. Kenai Fjords National Park Seward, AK. Unpublished report.

Larsson, Lars-Ake. 2004. CDendro software, available at: http://www.cybis.se/forfun/dendro/.

Mack, R.N., Simberloff D., Lonsdale W.M., Evens H., Clout M. & Fakhri, B. 2000. Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences and control. Issues in Ecology Issue 5

Melillo, J.M., Janetos A.C., Karl T.R. 2000. National Assessment Synthesis Team, Climate Change Impacts on the United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change, US Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC.

Nolan, Andrew. 2002. Vetch infestations in Alaska. A report for Alaska Dept. of Transportation and Public Facilities. 35 pp.

Simonson, S. Stohlgren, T. & Barnett, D. 2004. The Invasive Species Survey: A Report on the Invasion of the National Wildlife Refuge System. US Fish & Wildlife Service. 38 pp.

Stokes, M. A. & T. L. Smiley. 1996. An Introduction to Tree-ring Dating. University of Arizona Press. Tuscon, AZ.

Titus, G & C. Cassidy. 2003. Alaska’s No. 1 Guide: The History and Journals of Andrew Berg. Spruce Tree Publishing. Soldotna, AK.

Tu, M. & B. Meyers-Rice. 2001. Early Detection and Quick Elimination of a New Invader in Southeast Alaska. The Nature Conservancy, Wildland Invasive Species Team. (http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu/success/ak001.html) viewed March 4, 2005

USDA Forest Service - Field Procedures for the Coastal Alaska Inventory (2002) (http://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/fia/local- resources/pdf/field_manuals/ak/2003_coak_field_manual.pdf) Viewed March, 2005.

29 Westbrooks, R. 1998. Invasive plants, changing the landscape of America: Fact book. Federal Interagency Committee for the Management of Noxious and Exotic Weeds (FICMNEW), Washington, D.C. 109 pp.

Rejmanek, M. and J.M. Randall. 1994. Invasive alien plants in California: 1993 summary and comparison with other areas in North America. Madrono 41(3): 161-177.

Appendix A

Survey of Exotic, Noxious and Invasive Flora: Kenai National Wildlife Refuge

Survey of Exotic, Invasive and Noxious Flora: Kenai National Wildlife Refuge

SUMMER

2005

Written and Compiled By: Caleb R Slemmons, Biological Technician Intern For

Kenai National Wildlife Refuge US Fish & Wildlife Service

Abstract

Following an alarming, localized outbreak of garlic mustard (Allaria petiolata) near Juneau in 2001, the state of Alaska has been quickly trying to assess the statewide status of invasive flora (Tu & Meyers-Rice, 2001). Current warming trends and spruce mortality due to bark beetle infestation are likely to further exacerbate the problem as invasive species begin to colonize once inhospitable locations. Many feel that the State of Alaska has a unique opportunity to be proactive in managing exotic, invasive and other injurious plants. Many federal agencies including Natural Resource Conservation Service, National Parks and US Forest Service have begun to survey for exotic, invasive and noxious weeds throughout Alaska. As such, over sixty exotic plant species and fourteen invasives have been recorded on the Kenai Peninsula.

Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KENWR) in Southcentral Alaska has promulgated this plan to survey exotic, invasive plants including federal and state “noxious weeds” across the 2 million acre refuge, utilizing a unique grid-based sampling scheme and also within human-disturbed sites. The results will provide vital baseline information about refuge biotic integrity and provide insight into future invasive plant monitoring and management efforts for the Kenai Refuge.

Cover: Top Left - Common plantain (Plantago major), Top Right - Spotted knapweed (Centaurea biebersteinii) and Bottom – red clover (Trifolium pratense)

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Definitions...... 3 1.0 Introduction...... 4 1.1 Role of US Fish and Wildlife Service...... 6 1.2 The Kenai Peninsula and Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KENWR) ...... 7 Table 1 - Twenty of the most common exotics for the Kenai Peninsula...... 9 2.0 Collaboration...... 11 2.1 FIA & LTEMP ...... 11 2.2 AKEPIC (Alaska Exotic Plant Information Clearinghouse)...... 12 2.3 BAER (Burn Area Emergency Rehabilitation)...... 11 2.3 WIMS (Weed Information Management System) National Refuge System Test Pilot.....12 3.0 Immediate Goals...... 14 4.0 Long-Term Goals...... 14 ADAPTIVE MONITORING MODEL...... 15 5.0 Methods and Approach for FY05...... 16 5.10 Landscape (LTEMP) Monitoring – Phase 1:...... 16 Target Species List: ...... 16 5.20 Anthropogenic Disturbance Monitoring- Phase 2:...... 17 Table 2 – Types and extent of linear disturbance features at KENWR...... 17 Table 3 – Types and extent of polygon disturbance features at KENWR...... 18 Table 4 – Type and number of point disturbance features at KENWR...... 18 5.21 Temporary Survey Plots (Extensive Sampling) ...... 19 Linear Features ...... 19 Polygon Features...... 20 5.22 Permanent Monitoring Plots (Intensive Sampling)...... 21 Site Selection ...... 21 Vegetation Sampling...... 22 Soil Samples ...... 24 Site Monuments and Photographs...... 24 6.0 Preliminary and Anticipated Results...... 26 Table 5 – Records of exotic flora from LTEMP (2004)...... 26 7.0 Literature Cited...... 28

APPENDIX

Survey Plan Appendix A - Exotic Target Species List for LTEMP Query and Anthropogenic Disturbance Survey Survey Plan Appendix B - KENWR Anthropogenic Footprint Maps Survey Plan Appendix C - Datasheets and AKEPIC Data Dictionary Survey Plan Appendix D - Permanent Monitoring Site Locations

3 Abbreviations

AKEPIC – Alaska Exotic Plant Information Clearinghouse

ANILCA - Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act

BAER - Burn Area Emergency Rehabilitation

CNIPM - The Alaska Committee for Noxious and Invasive Plants Management

USFWS – United States Fish and Wildlife Service

KENWR – Kenai National Wildlife Refuge

WIMS – Weed Information Management System

Definitions

"Invasive species" means an alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health. (Executive Order 13112)

3 1.0 Introduction

Invasive plants and “noxious weeds” (see definitions) can cause substantial problems for natural systems often by reducing diversity of native plant populations and even altering ecosystem functions (Mack et al., 2000). As of 1994, an estimated $20 billion dollars per year were expended to monitor and control invasive plants in the US (Westbrooks, 1998). Prior to the Executive Order, little concerted effort had been made to stem the tide of plant invasions. A lone exception, the 1974 Federal Noxious Weed Act, allowed for some restrictions on importation of noxious weeds - primarily those deleterious to agricultural production.

Many feel that the State of Alaska has a unique opportunity to be proactive in managing exotic, invasive and other injurious plants. As a combined result of unique climate conditions and fewer population and land use pressures, only 144 (~10%) of species in Alaska are considered exotic with viable wild populations (Rejmanek and Randall 1994). However, increased plant inventories are likely to yield additional accounts and spruce bark beetle infestation along with warming trends are likely to exacerbate the problem. Already localized populations of a widespread aggressive invader, garlic mustard (Alliaria petiolata (Bieb.) Cavara & Grand), were located in 2001 near Juneau (Tu & Meyers- Rice, 2001). Bird or tufted vetch (Viccia cracca) is a common roadside invader with infestations in several locations throughout the state including Southcentral Alaska (Nolan, 2002). Figure 1 - Stages of plant invasion from Hobbs & Humphries (1995)

4 Alaska has much to loose and prevention is the key as restoration and cleanup can be far more expensive to implement once invasives are already established and are beyond the control priority stage (Fig. 1; Hobbs & Humphries, 1995). The time and cost for removal and revegetation projects can be staggering. In fact, invasive species have the potential to undermine much of Alaska’s resource base and industry including fishing and tourism.

Attempts are underway to determine the extent of distributions of noxious weeds and other invasive and injurious plants in Alaska (Fig 2). The Alaska Committee for Noxious and Invasive Plants Management (CNIPM) launched in 2001, the Strategic Plan for Noxious and Invasive Plants Management in Alaska and has broad endorsement from local entities to federal agencies including US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The Strategic Plan calls for increased coordination and heightened awareness of the importance of the invasive plant issue. In addition, increased inventory work, monitoring, research and management of invasive plant populations are part of the Plan. As a result, the Alaska Exotic Plant Information Clearinghouse (AKEPIC) and associated data collection standards have been developed. In addition, the Alaska Natural Heritage Program has begun a ranking project to determine the relative invasiveness of exotic plants for management prioritization.

Figure 2 - Recorded extent of exotic and invasive flora for Alaska from AKEPIC (2004)

5 Several locations in Alaska are beginning to receive needed attention in terms of inventorying and monitoring for invasive plants. The National Park Service found almost 30 species of exotics in 5 Alaskan park units in a 2001 survey (Densmore, 2001). Recent inventories conducted at Chugach National Forest have identified populations of more than 60 exotic species and 6 species listed as State noxious or restricted weeds (Duffy, 2003; DeVelice, 2004). Several National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska have existing inventory, monitoring and/or Figure 3 - Orange Hawkweed - a control programs underway for invasive flora. Following common ornamental that is gaining a foothold on the Kenai an outbreak of orange hawkweed (Fig. 3; Hieracium Peninsula aurantiacum) on Kodiak Island in South Western Alaska the Kodiak Refuge began an aggressive, ongoing eradication project. In the Interior, Tetlin Refuge found three non-native clovers in a survey of the Alaskan Highway corridor adjacent to the refuge and is beginning monitoring efforts (Cebrian & Johnson, 2004).

1.1 Role of US Fish and Wildlife Service

The National Wildlife Refuge Improvement Act (1997) articulates, “ biological integrity, diversity, and environmental health of the System are [to be] maintained.” As managers of the 93 million acre National Wildlife Refuge system, part of the mission of USFWS is to conserve and manage plant resources while preserving biodiversity. The spread of invasive and federally recognized noxious weeds are likely the foremost threat to maintaining the diversity of native plants within the refuge system. In fact, invasive plants have overrun almost 15% of all refuge lands. In addition to federal mandates in Executive Order 13112 the USFWS has incepted a National Strategy for Management of Invasive Species. This strategy outlines the following four goals with regard to invasive species management:

? Increase awareness; ? Reduce the impacts to refuge habitats; ? Reduce impacts to neighboring lands; and

6 ? Use and develop new integrated pest management approaches. (USFWS National Strategy for Management of Invasive Species, 2003)

The Strategy firmly asserts, “Research and monitoring are critical for managing the invasive species problem proactively”. Alaskan refuges bear much of the responsibility of keeping invasive and exotic species at bay within the refuge system, as they constitute 83% of National Wildlife Refuge lands.

1.2 The Kenai Peninsula and Kenai National Wildlife Refuge (KENWR)

“The Kenai Mountains reach 6,200 feet (1,900 meters) and are separated by broad, U-shaped glacial valleys. Several of these valleys have glaciers in their upper reaches and are drained by braided rivers, but there are numerous clear water rivers as well. Large lakes are common. Soils on the steep slopes are derived from glacial deposits, with many rocky outcrops. Some of the valley bottoms are narrow, and soils there are derived from glacial alluvial outwash. The climate is transitional between maritime and continental. Average rainfall varies from 20 to 80 inches (50 to 200 cm) per annum, and the mean annual temperature is 39 degrees F (3.9 degrees C), five degrees warmer that the Copper River Delta.” (DeVelice et al. 1999)

“Kenai National Wildlife Refuge was set aside as the Kenai National Moose Range in 1941, and established as a National Wildlife Refuge in 1980 under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). KENWR encompasses 2 million acres of ecologically diverse landscape, with elevations ranging from sea level to more than 6,600 feet in the Kenai Mountains. The Harding Ice Field lies in the Kenai Mountains, with several glacial fingers extending downward into river valleys and glacial lakes in the interior. KENWR is bisected by the Kenai River, which drains 2,150 miles2. The lowland boreal forest is dominated by white (Picea glauca) and black (P. mariana) spruce, interspersed with white birch (Betula papyrifera) and quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides). Alpine forests include mountain hemlock (Tsuga mertensiana). Alder and willow shrubs, and lichen dominate the tundra above tree line (~1,800 ft). At least 199 species of amphibians, birds, and mammals are known to use habitats on KENWR. More than 1.3 million acres of KENWR are designated wilderness.” (KENWR LMTB, 2003)

Kenai NWR was established under ANILCA for the following purposes:

(i) To conserve fish and wildlife populations and habitats in their natural diversity, including but not limited to moose, bear, mountain goats, Dall sheep, wolves and other furbearers, salmonoids and other fish, waterfowl and other migratory and nonmigratory birds;

(ii) To fulfill the international treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish and wildlife and their habitats;

(iii) To ensure, to the maximum extent practicable and in a manner consistent with the purposes set forth in paragraph (i), water quality and necessary water quantity within the refuge;

(iv) To provide in a manner consistent with paragraphs (i) and (ii), opportunities for scientific research, interpretation, environmental education, and land management training; and

(v) To provide, in a manner compatible with these purposes, opportunities for fish and wildlife-oriented recreation.

Kenai NWR is the most visited refuge in Alaska and one of only two that are road accessible. Aside from extensive public use, surrounding land uses such as oilfields and urban development make the KENWR very susceptible to many common vectors of exotic species introduction. Exotic floras are likely well established on certain parts of the refuge. Exotic species have already been documented elsewhere on the Kenai Peninsula: Chugach National Forest (Duffy 2003, DeVelice 2004), Kenai Fjords National Park (Densmore et al. 2001), and on adjacent nonfederal lands (Homer/Kenai SWCD 2004)(Fig. 4 and Table 1).

Table 1 - Twenty of the most common exotics for the Kenai Peninsula from AKEPIC records (2002-2004)

# of AKEPIC Alaskan State Noxious Latin Name Common entries Invasive Weed Taraxacum officinale dandelion 246 Poa annua annual bluegrass 220 x Plantago major common plantain 154 x Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass 151 Trifolium repens white clover 115 Matricaria discoidea disc mayweed 91 Phleum pratense timothy 85 Lupinus polyphyllus bigleaf lupine 76 Crepis tectorum narrowleaf hawksbeard 74 x Trifolium hybridum alsike clover 56 Cerastium fontanum ssp. vulgare big chickweed 47 Linaria vulgaris butter and eggs 45 x x Leucanthemum vulgare oxeye daisy 43 x Rumex crispus curly dock 37 Melilotus officinalis yellow sweetclover 30 x Lolium perenne perennial ryegrass 27 Veronica serpyllifolia thymeleaf speedwell 26 Capsella bursa-pastoris shepherd's purse 25 Polygonum aviculare prostrate knotweed 24 Alopecurus pratensis meadow foxtail 19

As agency signatories of the CNIPM plan and as directed by legislative and agency mandates, KENWR promulgated the development of the following plan to survey exotic, invasive and noxious weeds on refuge lands at two scales – at the landscape level and within human-disturbed sites. The results of this survey will provide vital baseline information about refuge biotic integrity and provide insight into future exotic and invasive plant monitoring and management efforts.

Figure 4 – Kenai Peninsula records of exotic and invasive flora from AKEPIC (2004)

2.0 Collaboration This project afforded the opportunity to take advantage of existing vegetation datasets and collaborate with existing invasive monitoring programs and efforts. The intention was to form and maintain positive relations for collaboration and make methodology compatible with existing survey protocols to allow comparison and sharing of datasets.

2.1 FIA & LTEMP Under the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Research Act (1978) and the Agriculture Research, Extension, and Education Reform Act (1998), the USDA administers the Forest Inventory & Analysis program (FIA), a national program with a mission to “make and keep current a comprehensive inventory and analysis of the present and prospective conditions of and requirements for the renewable resources of the forest and rangelands of the United States”. During 1999 - 2002, the FIA completed the inventory of forest resources on 176 permanent sites at 4.8-km intervals systematically distributed across KENWR. The FIA plans to resample 20% of these points every other year, beginning in 2005, such that the first round of monitoring will be completed in 2013.

To take advantage of this monitoring effort, KENWR extended the existing FIA grid over the remaining non-forested portions of KENWR (an additional 174 sites) and overlaid a comprehensive monitoring program for selected faunal assemblages, including vascular plants, formalized as the Long Term Ecological Monitoring Program (LTEMP). LTEMP is therefore comprised of 350 permanent plots over 2 million acres. The resolution is sufficient that the spatial distribution of the 350 sites is proportionately representative of the major land types on KENWR; i.e., collective data from LTEMP are representative of KENWR as a whole. Species occurrence is determined at permanent points on a grid (status) and the proportion of points occupied by a species will be monitored over time (trend). Logistic regression modeling is used to determine the physical and biological factors that affect the distribution of species.

11 The specific objectives of LTEMP are to (1) Determine the occurrence and distribution of selected flora & fauna (inventory); (2) Assess trends in occurrence and distribution of selected flora & fauna (monitoring); and (3) Develop explanatory and predictive statistical models to assess effects of

geophysical, biological, and anthropogenic factors on distributions (modeling).

2.2 AKEPIC (Alaska Exotic Plant Information Clearinghouse) Following the CNIPM plan, AKEPIC was created collaboratively by USFS State and Private Forestry, the National Park Service and the USGS Alaska Science Center. The database, currently hosted by Alaska Natural Heritage Program (http://akweeds.uaa.alaska.edu), provides spatial information about exotic and invasive plant distribution statewide. The manual provided by AKEPIC outlines data requirements, as recommended by the North American Weed Management Association. All data collected for this effort, with the exception of confidential LTEMP and FIA plots, will meet AKEPIC standards and will be submitted to for inclusion into the statewide database.

2.3 BAER (Burn Area Emergency Rehabilitation) Following severe Alaskan wildfires in 2004, an interagency plan was drafted to provide stabilization and mitigation of the impact of fires and suppression activities (BAER, 2004). Following a vegetation resource assessment, recommendations were made to federal entities to monitor and control the spread and proliferation of invasive plants as a result of fires and associated suppression efforts. One objective of the following rehabilitation plan was to “Evaluate potential for invasive plant species introduction or encroachment into native plant communities within, and adjacent to, fire areas and along travel ways.”(BAER, 2004).

12 of BAER protocols (Appendix C) for surveying exotic, invasive species on refuge lands statewide for FY05. The Alaska Natural Heritage Program will use the protocols in July for assessment of the Glacier Creek fire within KENWR on Tustumena Lake.

2.3 WIMS (Weed Information Management System) National Refuge System Test Pilot

The Nature Conservancy’s Weed Information Management System (WIMS) is a MS Access relational database (Fig. 5) that allows users to manage weed occurrence, assessments and treatments. It also can produce customized reports of infestations by defined areas and allows output of data in various formats including GIS shapefiles. Originally developed for their own use, Nature Conservancy has Figure 5 - WIMS desktop interface in MS Access made it available as public domain to other land management and resource organizations and agencies. The WIMS database is also usable as a field data collection utility that runs in ArcPAD (ESRI; Redlands, CA) on a pocket PC that interfaces the desktop version. In 2004, the USFWS began test piloting a program using volunteers to collect information about the extent of invasive plant infestations at several refuges nationwide. This year they were looking to expand the program using WIMS and have an Alaskan refuge participate. Kenai NWR was already in the planning stages of a summer survey and had several volunteers ready. Representatives from the Nature Conservancy and San Pablo NWR, who participated last year, held a training session in early July to orient volunteers and KENWR to the use of WIMS and field data collection.

13 3.0 Immediate Goals (1) Compile list of potential terrestrial vascular flora classified into four types: invasive, exotic, federal and state noxious weeds; i.e. target species. (2) Determine baseline distribution of target species at two scales on KENWR: landscape (LTEMP) and anthropogenic disturbance. (3) Determine how disturbance type (e.g. recreation, oil/gas activity) may affect distribution of target species.

4.0 Long-Term Goals (1) Make recommendations to prioritize and manage invasive plant populations incorporating concepts of early detection and rapid response (2) Develop methodology for monitoring sites in subsequent years including: (a) Permanent points on LTEMP grid for long-term trends (b) Permanent transects/points within the anthropogenic footprint for long-term trends (broader vegetation sampling- modified point intercept method from LTEMP) (c) Stratified-random ephemeral plots/transects to inventory new areas (d) Monitoring as follow-up to treatment (fire/herbicides/physical removal)

14 ADAPTIVE MONITORING MODEL FOR EXOTIC, INVASIVE AND NOXIOUS WEEDS AT KENWR

FY 2005 ASSESS PROBLEM

FY 2005 Set objectives Design inventory method & obtain benchmarks - ANALYZE DA 2006

REASSESS

EVALUATE DATA & ADJUST Determine effectiveness of assessment & identify information gaps

FY 2007 DESIGN MONITORING PLAN Determine monitoring needs and objectives Design monitoring methods - Beyond REASSESS EVALUATE &

IMPLEMENT Follow monitoring plan Develop & implement management plan

15 5.0 Methods and Approach for FY05

5.10 Landscape (LTEMP) Monitoring – Phase 1: The Forest Inventory and Analysis program utilized a number of vegetation and forest structure methods based on nested, fixed-radius plot design (for further detail consult USDA Forest Service’s Field Procedures for the Coastal Alaska Inventory, 2002). To take advantage of this monitoring effort, KENWR extended the existing FIA grid (Fig. 6) over the remaining non- forested portions of KENWR (an additional 152 points; ?=327; Fig 5.0). Began in 2004, Long Term Ecological Monitoring Program (LTEMP) sites were assessed of herbaceous and woody vegetative cover within the first 2 m above ground and were sampled using a modified point- intercept sampling technique (Dunn, 1992). Figure 6 – KENWR’s LTEMP sampling grid Target Species List: A list of target exotic, vascular plant species for Alaska (Appendix A), classified by type (invasive, state and federal noxious weeds), was assembled into a database utilizing published sources. Species were further classified based on their recorded occurrence in Alaska and on the Kenai Peninsula. This was accomplished primarily via AKEPIC records, but a few species were added from published accounts not included in database accounts (Duffy, 2004; DeVelice 2004; Homer/Kenai SWCD 2004; Simonson et al., 2004). Those species not listed as noxious or invasive and have not been recorded in Alaska are identified as potential invaders from sources such as noxious weeds of Canada and Northwestern US.

Species were subsequently coded utilizing the United States Department of Agriculture Integrated Taxonomic Information System (http://www.itis.usda.gov; ITIS, 2005). Species invasiveness and management prioritization information were appended to these records from

16 Alaska Natural Heritage Program’s Weed Ranking Project (AKNHP, 2004) and Natureserve’s invasive species rankings (Natureserve, 2004). MS Access (2000) queries returned target species from the LTEMP dataset with plot spatial coordinates. Baseline landscape frequency was calculated and landscape distribution mapped using ArcGIS 9.0 (ESRI; Redlands, CA). Target lists should be updated periodically for future use in LTEMP monitoring.

5.20 Anthropogenic Disturbance Monitoring- Phase 2: A restricted list of local, target species was constructed for monitoring surveys in FY05 utilizing records of exotic, invasive and noxious plant records for the Kenai Peninsula from AKEPIC and other published sources (Appendix A, “Recorded for Kenai Peninsula”). A series of GIS map layers were used to determine locations of anthropogenically-disturbed areas (Appendix B). Various data sources yielded locations of known disturbances such as gas/oil infrastructure and well sites, trailheads, powerline/pipeline right of ways and roads. Disturbance types, summarized in the tables below, were stratified into types and into linear (eg. roads) or polygon features (eg. gravel pits, oil/gas well sites). Some of the disturbance areas were recorded as point locations (Table 3) and therefore have no recorded extent - these were regarded as polygon features for the purposes of this survey.

Table 2 – Types and extent of linear disturbance features at KENWR

TYPE Linear Features Length (miles) road highway 22.85 road inholder access 5.2 road logging road 94.95 road oil/gas road 94.24 SUBTOTAL 217.24 trails trails 262.93 oil/gas pipelines 71.11 development powerlines 39.36 oil/gas seismic lines 913.07 TOTAL 1503.71

Table 3 – Types and extent of polygon disturbance features at KENWR

TYPE Polygon Features # Area (acres) KENWR Headquarters Bldgs 1 0.75 KENWR Moose Research Center 1 3,038.59 development gravel pits 5 15.03 oil/gas oil/gas pads 104 201.33 oil/gas oil/gas bldgs 90 7.32 TOTAL 3263.02

Table 4 – Type and number of point disturbance features at KENWR (spatial extent not available)

TYPE Point Features # recreation Tent Camping 1 recreation Outdoor Education Center 1 recreation Visitor Center 2 recreation Dump Station 2 recreation Access Sites 7 recreation Campgrounds 13 recreation Cabins 15 recreation Trailheads 29 SUBTOTAL 71 oil/gas wells etc. 188 development culverts 21 TOTAL 280

Comprehensive sampling of incipient plant populations on these extensive disturbance features was not an attainable goal for this initial survey effort. Therefore, these methods were designed to give an idea of frequency, distribution and provide an overview of the resident exotic flora of KENWR. They are not intended to provide a comprehensive inventory of all target species and locations at KENWR.

Priority was given to sampling sites with the greatest likelihood of invasion when time and/or resources constrained sampling. In addition, to minimize the effects of flowering phenology on the likelihood of detection – sampling of anthropogenic disturbances were divided among types throughout the survey period. Such that in a given week of surveys an array of features will be

18 sampled. The two tiered sampling scheme described below is intended to provide quick, systematic coverage with survey of temporary plots and more intensive, rigorous sampling at a series of permanent monitoring sites.

5.21 Temporary Survey Plots (Extensive Sampling)

Linear Features Roads: Parallel to the road, every 0.5 mi a 100m long transect will be surveyed on alternating sides of the road. Surveyors will stretch a 100 m tape along the road edge and record occurrence of target species along the right of way (Appendix C – Data Sheets) in meter increments along the transect length. This procedure will be used to survey the main roads on Refuge lands: Sterling Highway, Skilak Loop, Swan Lake and Swanson River Roads. Sterling Highway corridor, unlike other Refuge roadways, has a variety of widths along its 22-mile length bisecting the Kenai Refuge. A perpendicular section will be surveyed to account for target species that may occur beyond the immediate right of way. A 1 m section, perpendicular to the road, will be surveyed at the start of the 100 m transect. The transect will be surveyed by selecting a compass heading perpendicular to the road and walking its length to forest edge. All target species encountered within the transect will be recorded. Occurrence of exotic flora will be expressed as frequency per linear distance of road length. Transect center (50 m mark) will be used to record GPS location and assessment of target species at the site (see Polygon Features below). Figure 7 - Location of temporary survey plots at KENWR

19 Trailheads, Seismic Lines: All trailheads and 30 randomly selected seismic lines (Fig. 7) that intersect roadways, will be assessed with a 2x100 m belt transect. The transect will be centered on the long axis of the feature and surveyed within 1 m increments that are 1 m wide on each side of the transect. Frequency will be recorded within 10 m increments of length along a meter tape as described above (Appendix C – Data Sheets). These data will provide an estimate of how exotic flora are distributed from a transition into less disturbed sites. In addition the GPS location of target species in the surrounding area will be mapped and assessed (see Polygon Features below).

Pipelines/Powerline Right of Ways: These features were not included in the FY05 survey scheme for temporary sites. They are a minor component of the overall anthropogenic footprint of KENWR (Table 2; Appendix B) and are difficult to sample in a meaningful way and still provide good coverage for higher priority sites. They are included in the stratification of permanent sites (§5.22 Permanent Monitoring Sites) to be established in FY05. Preliminary data from these sites will help determine if they may be an important feature for future sampling and as an important corridor for establishment of non-native flora.

Polygon Features

The irregular shape and widely varying size of these features (e.g., campgrounds, oil/gas pads & wells etc.) do not lend themselves to quick, rigorous quantitative methods. As such, these protocols were designed to provide an idea of the occurrence, abundance and relative size of target species infestations at these sites. For all polygon features the area will be surveyed with a thorough search for target species and quick assessment of the infestation area. For each site, the GPS location of each infestation center will be Figure 8 - Trimble GeoXM pocket PC/GPS unit for field recorded with Trimble GeoXM units (Fig. 8 - Trimble assessment of infestations

20 Inc; Sunnyvale, CA). Data will be collected commensurate with AKEPIC standards for each species encountered using an ArcPAD (ESRI; Redlands, CA) geodatabase on Trimble units. Data collected will include: % cover, acreage estimate and habitat type (Appendix C – AKEPIC Data Dictionary; AKEPIC Manual, 2004). The vegetation community type also will be recorded as in Viereck et. al (1992) for the immediate (20 m2) and adjacent (900 m2) area for further description of the sites. All data will be error checked and imported for data management into WIMS and subsequently submitted to AKEPIC (see Collaboration).

5.22 Permanent Monitoring Plots (Intensive Sampling) A series of plots will be sampled and monumented in FY05 to provide more detailed information about occurrence and density of exotic and invasive plants at selected sites. This will also provide opportunity for future monitoring efforts and assessment of change over time at monitoring locations (trend). Benchmark soil samples will also be collected at monitoring plots to further describe the disturbed habitats that are the focus of this survey. For each site an accurate (1-2 m) GPS location will be recorded and permanently marked (see “Site Monuments” below).

Site Selection Permanent sites (Fig. 9; Appendix D) selected for FY05 were within the following major disturbance classes: roads, seismic lines, power lines, pipelines, trails, oil/gas pads and campground facilities. Ten primary sampling locations, along with secondary priority sites, were chosen at random within each selected class of features (n=70) using Hawth’s Tools (V3.08) extension in ArcMap 9.0 (ESRI; Redlands, CA). Locations for seismic line, powerline and pipeline features were selected using 100m buffer of road intersections with the feature to be sampled.

Figure 9 - Location of Permanent Monitoring Sites at KENWR

For road locations, plot center is to be set on a line perpendicular with the road that is 5.64 m from the gravel berm. For trails, seismic lines, power and pipeline features the plot should be set in the center of the right of way, approximately 200 m in (linear distance) from road edge. For oil/gas pads and campgrounds the plot center should be located at the randomly generated point. However, if the point is not within a vegetated location or is otherwise unsuitable, the plot should be relocated to the nearest vegetated site and set in at least 5.64 m from paved or gravel substrates.

Vegetation Sampling Exotic herbaceous and woody vegetative cover within the first 2 m above ground will be sampled at permanent sites using a modified point-intercept sampling technique (Dunn 1992). Four 5-meter long transects (Fig 5.1) will be laid out in the cardinal compass directions (corrected for declination) from the plot center using tightly-woven, braided nylon cord (5mm-diameter) marked at 0.25-m intervals (laid to follow ground contour).

22 N 5 m

X X

2.5 m

X Soil Sampling Location (x)

Figure 10 - Permanent lot layout with soil sampling locations (x)

A 2m-long 13mm-diameter steel rod, marked at 1m to separate the vertical column into two strata, will be used as a sampling pin that is dropped vertically at each sampling point.

Each plant taxon that touches the rod one or more times is recorded within stratum at each point (Appendix C - Data Sheets). Only one hit per stratum, per point, per taxon is recorded at each of the 80 sampling points. If no vegetation touches the sampling pin within stratum, then NO PLANTS RECORDED should be tallied. Consequently, a minimum of 40 tallies should be recorded per stratum; the number of tallies recorded can exceed this value considerably depending on species richness.

Substrate categories are: BARE GROUND, ROCK, LITTER, DEAD WOOD (>25mm diameter), WATER, SNOW/ICE, ASH/CHARCOAL (i.e., burned), and LIVE VEGETATION.

23 substrate should also be recorded by species in the 1-m stratum. The total number of substrates recorded should always equal 20 per transect (80 per plot).

Also the occurrence of all vascular flora within 5 m of plot center (78.5 m2) will be identified and recorded. The vegetation community type to at least Level IV (Level V preferred) will be made at both the plot (78.5 m2) and surrounding landscape level (900 m2) using the Alaska Vegetation Classification (Viereck et al. 1992).

Soil Samples Two soil samples will be collected with a coring device, or soil probe sampler, at four sites (see Fig 1 – Plot layout) within all permanent plots. Soil samples are collected after litter is removed. Samples will be taken with 2.5cm diameter core to a depth a 15cm and pooled into one composite sample for the site. Samples will be dried, sieved and analyzed for total C, total N, pH, texture (% sand/silt/clay), and bulk density (Brookside Laboratory, OH).

Site Monuments and Photographs All permanent sites will be monumented with ½” rebar (approximately 0.75 m length) driven into plot center flush with substrate. Rebar will be capped with aluminum 9.5 cm diameter monumenting caps stamped with “Kenai NWR - US Fish and Wildlife Service: Long Term Monitoring Site” (Fig. 11 - ServKap Tucson, AZ).

Two stereo pictures will be taken across the Figure 11 - Monument cap for permanent center point looking South to North. If permanent monitoring sites the vegetation, topography, or lighting will cause an unsatisfactory picture, the picture may be taken in any cardinal direction. The photographer will stand 5.64m to the South of plot center and the other observer will stand 5.64m to the North. The photos are taken across the plot with the observer centered in the frame.

Note which part of the subject falls in the center of the frame and move the camera horizontally to the right (don’t move it up or down) approximately 20 cm and take the second photo with the same part of the subject in the viewfinder (photos may be taken in a vertical format to capture taller subjects).

25 6.0 Preliminary and Anticipated Results

Query of the LTEMP, including FIA data, for target species yielded a low frequency (2.87%) of exotic plants on the landscape. Seven sites contained a total of 4 exotic species listed below (Table 5). None of the species were previously described as invasive for Alaska. Neither were they listed as state or federal noxious weeds. However, Kenai Fjords National Park found that a population of 340 non-native dandelions (Taraxacum officinale) recorded in 2002 had expanded to over 12,000 plants in only a couple of years (Kriedeman, 2004)! That population, which was at a relatively non-disturbed site was pulled by Park Service employees and monitoring of the site is continuing.

Table 5 – Records of exotic flora from LTEMP (2004)

Latin Type AKNHP Rank Lupinus polyphyllus exotic 55 Lupinus polyphyllus exotic Lupinus polyphyllus exotic Lupinus polyphyllus exotic Poa trivialis exotic Potentilla gracilis exotic Taraxacum officinale exotic 64

All the species listed above, are likely introduced and are broadly known to inhabit waste places (Hulten, 1981). Potentilla gracilis, has not been recorded for the Peninsula by any AKEPIC contributors to date - on the other hand, big-leaf lupine (Lupinus polyphyllus) has been recorded within AKEPIC at over 70 other sites on the Peninsula (Fig. 12). LTEMP sites with records of exotic flora should be revisited to confirm the identification of the species listed in Table 5; they should be further monitored

Figure 12 - Records of exotic flora from LTEMP grid 26 over time to determine if the species are continuing to spread or affecting populations of native species at the sites.

Initial results indicate a relatively low occurrence of exotic species at the landscape level. However, vegetation at many sites has not been surveyed recently. As such, monitoring should continue on the landscape of KENWR as prevention is clearly the best way to deal with invasive species. Early detection and response to an incipient population of an invasive species is the next best thing. The future results of this monitoring program will be a crucial element for KENWR in this task.

The primary products will be:

(1) list of exotic flora recorded at KENWR

(2) an ITIS-referenced database of potential invasive, exotic, federal and state noxious flora and available priority ranking information

(3) spatially referenced, distributions of surveyed exotic and invasive refuge flora; and

(4) summaries of the frequency of occurrence of target species within disturbed sites such as frequency along Skilak Loop Road and occurrence of exotics within the Swanson River oilfield.

27 7.0 Literature Cited

AKEPIC Mapping Project Collaborator’s Manual, 2004 (http://akweeds.uaa.alaska.edu/) accessed February 2005.

AKNHP. 2004 - Alaska Natural Heritage Program Weed Ranking Project (http://akweeds.uaa.alaska.edu/akweeds_ranking_page.htm) accessed February 2005.

Cebrian, M. R. & Johnson, W.N. Alaska highway: 2004 invasive plant survey progress report 04-05. US Fish and Wildlife Service – Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge. 15 pp.

Densmore, R.V., P.C. McKee & C. Roland. 2001. Exotic plants in Alaskan National Park Units. USGS Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, AK. 144pp.

DeVelice, R.L. 2004. Non-native plant inventory: Kenai Trails. USDA Forest Service, Chugach National Forest, Alaska Region Technical Publication R10-TP-124. Anchorage, Alaska.

Hulten, E. 1981. Flora of Alaska and Neighboring Territories. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.